header-logo header-logo

28 June 2024 / Tom McNeill
Issue: 8077 / Categories: Opinion , Public , Environment , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Assuming guilt?

179423
Removing legal protections for company bosses won’t clean up our waterways, argues Tom McNeill

Labour plans to stop sewage polluting our rivers and seas include the eye-catching proposal: ‘Water bosses who oversee repeated law-breaking will face criminal charges.’ What does this mean? The law already contains provisions which allow for company officers to be prosecuted if environmental offences committed by the company are proved to have been committed with their ‘consent’, ‘connivance’, or ‘attributable to their neglect’. Those found guilty risk going to jail.

Guilt can be assumed

Comments from the shadow environment secretary, Steve Reed, suggest that the intention is changing the law to remove the requirement to prove such individual fault by senior managers when there is repeated serious offending by the company. When it comes to water company bosses, the idea appears to be that guilt can be assumed.

On 9 May, Mr Reed told the Commons: ‘The environmental regulator has today condemned the disgusting state of our waterways caused by the Conservatives letting water companies pump them full of raw sewage.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll